Presidential Propaganda

By Alston Ramsay | Monday, June 11, 2001

President Wright is skilled in the ways of propaganda. Last week he let us all know it.

His letter to the student body is a propagandist's masterpiece—short, terse, and full of tasty tidbits of hazy language and 'virtue words,' which aim to bypass the rational part of our minds by appealing purely to emotion.

I managed to identify 31 instances where President Wright used propaganda techniques identified during the 1930's by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). The institute's goals were to educate the American people in the ways of mass persuasion—good and bad. Propaganda is just that—an attempt to sway the masses to one's side by methods and techniques which will circumvent the normal functions of educated individuals in forming their own ideas and opinions, all with a pre-determined end in mind. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis strove to enlighten the American people to the techniques that could turn them towards communism, fascism, or Nazism. I now undertake the same task to enlighten the Dartmouth community toward the intentions of Wright's letter and to show how he succeeds.

The IPA discovered 7 techniques of propaganda in the 30's, six of which Wright appeals to numerously. After a brief definition of the six, I will analyze the letter with the disarming rhetorical questions that the IPA professed to be the only way to discover the underlying message and determine whether or not it was worthy.

Glittering generalities (GG) and Name-Calling (NC) form the backbone of President Wright's letter. Both arouse emotions in such a way that the true relevance of the term used to the situation is not considered. Glittering generalities, or 'virtue words,' cannot be easily defined, and therein lies there strength. They mean different things to different people. 'Community,' diversity,' 'core values,' all fall into this class. Everyone strives to embrace these notions, so if President Wright says we must increase the strength of the community, I would agree, even though the methods for doing this may run afoul of my idea of community. One can gather support for an idea, although the end result may not be supported in the least.

Name-Calling use the exact same definitions, only with terms of negative connotation, such as 'racism,' 'sexism,' and 'harassment.'

Testimonial (TT) is also present throughout the letter as President Wright uses his position to add credence to his argument. The fact that he is the very president of the College creates a sense that he is infallible, and therefore we must listen to him—or so the propagandist would have the common person believe.

By the end of the letter, he slips into 3rd person plural, which is the essence of the Plain Folks (PF) appeal. Used during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr. campaigns, this approach attempts to paint the propagandist as just 'a good ole guy, one of us.' This of course adds credibility since he is seeing things from our perspective.

Band Wagon (BW) can easily be summed by saying, 'Everyone else is doing it, so we should as well.' Yes, this seems elementary, but it is an effective tool when wielded correctly and inconspicuously, which it is in this instance.

Finally, Wright attempts to Transfer (TF) 'authority, sanction, and prestige' of his position and that of the deans, the 'process' and his 'community,' to something that otherwise may not be accepted—Zeta Psi's punishment in this case. Now to the letter.

'Dear members of the Dartmouth Community (GG—Right off the bat. Everyone should ponder how you define community, and whether or not President Wright concurs with this definition.),

'I was deeply offended (NC—Quickly. He takes on a harsh and indignant tone.) to learn that Zeta Psi fraternity had published a series of newsletters that specifically insulted (NC—We attack more with the first of many vague references that have very negative connotations.) individual members of this community (GG—I wouldn't mind a little clearer definition of community. Is his 'community' the same as mine?). I (TT—As with most aspects of this letter, his position is intended to give him a certain moral authority to tell the campus what is right and wrong.) am outraged (NC—The president is incensed, so clearly we must agree.) that such behavior could have occurred on our campus. No individual or group should ever be subjected to the abuse (NC—Typical name-calling. This arouses all negative emotions associated with the term 'abuse', regardless of whether it is relevant in this situation.), insult (NC), and harassment (NC—Three in a row. We're on a roll.) contained in these newsletters, and I am very sorry (TT—Why should his apology mean anything? How many of us are close, personal friends of the President? Is this really heart-felt? Especially considering that every student on campus received the same form letter.) that they were.

'Dean of College James Larimore and Dean of Residential Life Martin Redman first heard about the newsletters during the week of April 9th and they immediately began an investigation. I am confident (TT—Therefore, we should be confident as well.) that our established procedures (GG—Do we students actually have any idea what the 'established procedure' is? Isn't it purely subjective? I've never seen a specific set of guidelines for adjucating an issue such as this. In fact, I would say that most of it goes on behind closed doors, away from our prying eyes.) will address this matter fairly (GG—As fairly as the Psi Upsilon incident? Clearly, my definition of 'fair' is not the same.), deliberately (GG—What on earth is this supposed to mean?), and expeditiously (GG—Will they spend time, then, to contact all the relevant parties, or just hammer out a decision?). We need to let this process (GG—Once again, what process?) determine individual and organizational responsibility (GG—What type of responsibility? Will individuals no longer be afforded the right to speak their mind or write what they think? Will the same minimum standards rules be applied on the individual level?) and to set whatever sanction is appropriate (TF—Clearly, President Wright is already bracing us for any action that the school may take. The moral authority of the president and the 'process' is being transferred to the punishment, even though the punishment has not even been decided upon. Do WE really want this precedent set for US by the deans? I personally would prefer to be consulted first.).

'Dartmouth depends upon a sense of common respect (GG—Is his idea of respect the same as ours? Does this mean that the administration should also respect students' rights?) and mutual trust (GG—Should the administration then trust the student opinions and suggestions? I need only note fireplaces, door locks, Psi Upsilon, the Greek Life Steering Committee, and the SLI as evidence that our opinions are not taken under much, if any, consideration. 'Mutual' seems to be a relative term here.). No one here should feel insecure (NC—Many people are insecure about a multitude of things, ranging from their athletic and academic ability to their sexual prowess. Point being, it's a natural human phenomenon. I don't see why it shouldn't apply here, or why punishing Zeta Psi will affect my insecurities.) or threatened (NC—Let's be honest, how many of us really feel threatened? I feel threatened by an overbearing administration. Should this be taken into account?). These newsletters strike at the very core values (GG—What specifically are these? Once again, sounds nice in theory, but what is the reality?) of this community (GG). They do not represent us (BW—How does he know this? Are we to believe that the president knows what represents 4,000 17-23 year-olds? But now since everyone else clearly feels this way, perhaps I should reconsider. Or so this band wagon tactic would dictate.) nor do they define our relationship with each other (BW—Again, where is his frame of reference?). We (PF—Obviously, President Wright is now one of us. This switch to the 1st person plural links us together, a marked change from his testimonial at the beginning of the letter. Of course the change in tone really is awkward, compared to the righteous indignity of the first paragraph.) must all make clear that Dartmouth will not tolerate the degradation (NC) of any portion of our community (GG—Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this letter intended to degrade and attack Zeta Psi? Have they been ostracized already?). For in the end, such degradation (NC) only debases us all (PF—Does it really? Everyone on campus? I find that hard to believe.).'

I hope that everyone on this campus is intelligent enough to look at the relevant facts, and make an informed opinion about Zeta Psi based on their own opinions. I am apprehensive and disturbed that our own president would attempt to turn us against a group of fellow students. I also find it extremely hypocritical that President Wright could issue this letter that declares that the matter will be handled 'fairly.'

The student body should be allowed, and, more importantly, trusted, to form their own opinions about the events of the past week, outside the interference of any moral authority.

Presidential Propaganda

Article Tools

Related Articles